School district business is our expertise. With more than 30 attorneys dedicated to advising public agencies on the complex array of issues encountered while conducting their operations, Lozano Smith is prepared to share our knowledge gained in preparing thousands of contracts and helping school districts build hundreds of facilities. The business of schools is vast - from daily vendor contracts, to budgeting and revenue generation, our attorneys routinely advise on and advocate for school districts. Equally, Lozano Smith provides counsel and support on all aspects of real property and facilities issues. When a novel issue presents itself, we work closely with our clients to develop creative, efficient and effective solutions. And, if a contract is challenged or a construction project goes awry, our litigation team has a proven track record of success.
Lozano Smith Facilities and Business Practice Group specializes in:
Business
- Budgeting Issues, Funding Disputes & Audit Appeals
- Procurement of Supplies and Services
- Contract Development and Review
- Energy Issues
- Public Finance including Bond Counsel Services
- Technology Procurement and Contracting
Facilities
- Bidding, Bid Challenges and Alternative Project Delivery
- Selecting and Contracting with Construction Professionals
- Construction Contract Development and Administration
- Prevailing Wage and Project Labor Agreements
- Construction Advice & Litigation
- California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance
- Developer Fees and School Facilities Mitigation
- Prop. 39 Procurement and Contracting
- Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
- State Funding and the School Facilities Program
- Joint Facilities Use
Real Property
- Land Acquisition - Purchase and Exchange
- Due Diligence Issues including CDE Approval and Resolution of Title Exceptions
- Eminent Domain
- Land Use and Zoning Issues
- Leases, Easements and Other Property Interests
- Charter School Facilities and Prop. 39 Offers
- Surplus Property Disposition
Legislature Clarifies Timing of School Impact Fee Collection
August 25, 2025 Number 36 On June 27, 2025, Assembly Bill (AB) 121 went into effect, amending Government Code section 66007. The same statute was amended earlier this year by Senate Bill (SB) 937, requiring collection of developer fees at the final inspection stage of development (i.e., at the time a certificate occupancy is issued) for certain residential development projects. Among other exceptions and nuances, SB 937 allowed collection of impact fees for school facilities at ...
CEQA Reforms: 2025 Budget Trailer Bill Adds Exemptions and Revises Review Processes
July 25, 2025 Number 30 On June 30, 2025, Governor Newsom signed two budget trailer bills, Assembly Bill (AB) 130 and Senate Bill (SB) 131, that include substantial and immediately effective changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These bills add new express exemptions and revise existing exemptions, streamline review procedures for certain projects, and narrow the scope of the administrative record for a CEQA project. The new exemptions are in addition to existing exemp...
California Legislature Removes Two School District Surplus Land Act Exemptions
July 18, 2025 Number 29 As part of Assembly Bill (AB) 130, a sweeping budget trailer bill signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on June 30, 2025, two exemptions were removed from the Surplus Land Act that school districts had frequently relied on when disposing of their property. Removal of these exemptions may add requirements to the already complicated process school districts must follow prior to selling or leasing surplus property, such as vacant land or closed school sites. Surplus L...
Safer Rides Ahead? SB 88 Imposes Stricter Standards on all School-Related Student Transportation Starting July 1, 2025
June 30, 2025 Number 27 On October 7, 2023, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 88, which takes effect on July 1, 2025, and sets minimum health, safety, and oversight standards for drivers employed or contracted by school districts who transport students for any school-related transportation. Like many new laws, SB 88 poses many uncertainties and practical challenges for local educational agencies (LEAs) across the state in the effort of ensuring safe and reliable transportation f...
The Ongoing Evolution of State ADU Laws
April 2025Number 15Effective January 1, 2025, Government Code section 66323 (Section 66323) was updated to forbid local agencies from imposing any objective development or design standards unless explicitly authorized in Section 66323, leaving public agencies at a loss for what authority they truly have in the process of reviewing, accepting, and denying applications for accessory dwelling units (ADUs). ADUs and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) that are created pursuant to Section 6632...
California Supreme Court Clarifies Rule on Historic Property Divisions
February 2025Number 8In a recent decision, the California Supreme Court sided with the City of Oakland (City) in an important property dispute, which clarified when lots created prior to March 4, 1972, can be recognized as separate parcels under the Subdivision Map Act (Act). The Court emphasized the purpose of the statute was to “provide a fair and equitable scheme to settle the validity of divisions of land occurring in decades past under earlier provisions of law, which supports the ...
Legislature Impacts Timing of When Developer Fees May Be Collected for Many Local Agencies
January 2025Number 5On September 20, 2024, the Governor signed into law Senate Bill (SB) 937, amending a section of the Mitigation Fee Act. The changes to Government Code section 66007 went into effect January 1, 2025. As discussed more thoroughly below, the impact of SB 937 on school districts compared to other local agencies is less clear, but we continue to monitor legislative activity and guidance from State agencies.The Mitigation Fee Act permits a local agency, including cities, countie...
Representative Cases
| Lozano Smith was part of the team representing Los Angeles Unified School District in Williams v. State of California, a massive statewide class action involving alleged conditions in public schools including alleged inequalities in school facilities, instructional materials and teachers, particularly at underperforming schools that were already the subject of various state and federal categorical programs. |
| Clovis Unified School District v. Chiang (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 794. Assisted eleven school districts with invalidating audits of several state mandated cost reimbursement claims worth more than $30 million, based upon the use of invalid, underground auditing documentation rule by the State Controller’s Office. The firm was later able to receive an award of $240,000 from the superior court for fees and costs incurred in the litigation efforts, largely offsetting the school districts’ legal costs in the case. |
| Oak Grove Elementary School District v. George W. Putris, as Tax Collector for the County of Santa Clara, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 114CV261473. Represented the District in a complex matter related to a parcel tax authorized by the District's Board and approved by voters in 1991. The District returned to the voters every four years to re-obtain approval to increase the appropriations limit to spend tax revenues, but uncertainty loomed in 2014 regarding whether the District still had authority to collect taxes in 2014 after not needing to increase the annual appropriations limit that same year. The County Tax Collector was unclear whether it still had the authority to collect the taxes, therefore leading to Lozano Smith filing a lawsuit on behalf of the District seeking a peremptory writ of mandate commanding the County Tax Collector to collect parcel taxes. The lawsuit resulted in a stipulated judgment issuing a peremptory writ of mandate commanding the Tax Collector to collect the parcel tax. |
| Modtech Holdings v. Pajaro Valley Unified School District. On two separate elementary school projects totaling $4 million, the District withheld substantial sums to cover damages caused the contractor. One project under the control of the contractor had a fire, with the contractor refusing to compensate the District. The other project suffered construction deficiencies in the stucco and roof. The contractor sued for improper withholding and the District cross-complained for additional damages, resulting in a $1 million dispute. After discovery and expert investigation revealed additional claims for the District, the case resolved very favorably for the District a few months short of trial. |
| R. Baker, Inc. v. Coast Unified School District. A school district was subject to multi-million dollar design, delay and defect claims related to construction of a new elementary school located in the Coastal Zone. The project also suffered from an inadequate Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), thus causing the school district to be fined in excess of $300,000. The litigation settled favorably for the District at mediation. |
| Mountain Cascade v. Santa Clara Valley Water District. The District entered a contract with the plaintiff to install a recycled water pipeline. As part of the original plans and specifications, the contract also called for the additional installation of fiber optic conduits. However, after award the District deleted the fiber optic work from the project since the bid on that line item was excessive. The District then added back a small portion of the fiber optic work that was within the budget. The contractor sued the District for lost profits based on the deleted work. Our attorney won summary judgment for the District based on the broad right to add and delete work, and successfully defended the decision on appeal. |
| Teichert Construction v. City of Stockton, et al. During a $15 million dual grade separation project, the contractor and one of its subcontractors submitted claims of more than $3 million based on delay. Despite many issues of delay caused by utilities and railroad companies, the case settled favorably at pre-discovery mediation for under $1 million despite a significant number of delay days for which the City had to take responsibility. |
| Anderson Union High School District v. Shasta Secondary Home School (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 262. Lozano Smith successfully argued, in a case of first impression, that the geographic and site limitations of the Charter Schools Act (Ed. Code, § 47600 et seq.) are applicable to all charter schools, including “nonclassroom-based” programs. |
